Codex Incoming!

[taikishi]

Besides, I thought GW only published new models to scalp us for money for OP stuff? The new hotness rules the meta and stuff? :) Seriously though, have the discussion, but don't forget that while dark lances do into wreck a Paragon's day, what are you getting in return? What directions can you push these to separate them from PEngines and Mortifiers? Because, yes, in a straight up fight for offensive dominance, Paragons don't win. In some defensive arguments, too, Paragons don't win. So where do they win?

I plan on doing comparisons to more than just dark lances, the dark lance is just all I have time for right now. But to answer your question on where they win? Currently, they don't. If they were infantry OR had a native 5++ that could be made into a 4++ with the hymn, weren't 80 points per model, and had another wound I think things would change drastically for them. Unfortunately, none of these things are true :(

Edited June 14, 2021 by taikishi

[Purifying Tempest]

My only major issue work Paragons is the model itself; the Sister's legs should either be outside the suit or the suit should be scaled in a way that her feet aren't at its knees. But I have issues with a lot of GW models and their scaling and proportions, so this isn't unique to the Warsuits.

 

Trust me, I want to like the Warsuits, but the investment to make them decent isn't worth the opportunity costs that can be put elsewhere into units that are already better. Every resource in an army is precious and scarce. Why would I invest my resources making a bad unit mediocre or a mediocre unit average when I can spend them improving the things that are already good?

 

And I don't see Orks making Paragons better than Mortifiers unless Paragons stay immune to D1. I don't have time to run the simulations, but I would think 8 heavy flamers or 8 heavy bolters would still be better than 3 on the shooting end. In the fight phase, getting 10 attacks (or 12 with the default Hymn) per model with flails at 3+ is better than 10 attacks total. I also don't remember the stats in the new choppas, so I'm not willing to make a call on which is more survivable in melee vs Orks.

 

If memory serves... Choppas are still STR User, but they got -1 AP (which is still pretty good vs Paragons that aren't Valorous Heart).

 

I honestly don't believe that paragons make the army more punchy or lethal.  I think they are designed to be like Fulkes pointed out: bully units that just absorb gobs of fire like terminators.  And honestly, that's something sisters can struggle with.  Our stuff is really removable due to incidental/smaller arms fire.  Paragons and Sacrosancts represent a reversal of that trend.  And while they aren't SUPER tanky, they're going to deserve more attention than some opponents are going to be comfortable with to remove.  If they can make it to the later turns when players start to deplete or you've had time to knock out things that can threaten them more efficiently, they can be really annoying to remove and secure some more points or bust a unit off of an objective.  And I think they have a fairer chance of reaching those stages, if properly supported, than our current line of walkers... which are literally there to front-load offense.

 

Edit: and yes, they'd be almost auto-include if they could get the WLT +1 invul :D  That'd be amazing... and I think the INFANTRY word on that Warlord Trait is really... over-the-top restrictive when CORE was also included :)  All that word did was exclude just the poor Paragons from the "Emperor Protects" party :)

Edited June 14, 2021 by Purifying Tempest

[taikishi]

See, that's part of the problem. Unless you outflank them, they aren't likely to make it long in the game. If vehicles were better in general and the Immolator, Castigator, and Exorcist weren't overcosted, even having 1-2 of those on the field would bring up the Paragon's value. I also think the unit, as is, should be 3-6 to increase those odds but I'm not sure I'm willing to invest 480 points into one unit unless they prove to be a lot better than they currently are.

 

And, yeah, I figured VH would be good for them again most melee. Funnily enough, if they could survive better I think OML would be a good choice for them as well. Lose 1 and the other two get better. Lose the unit, gain a MD. However, I feel like the gobs of fire comparison to terminators is off because their profile favors then being targeted by S6+, multi-damage weapons than mass bolter/heavy bolter fire whereas terminators are still T4.

 

Edit: even if you do outflank the Warsuits, they're still not likely to make it long because all you've done is delayed their arrival ;) Just at this point they may be playing mop up or providing a distraction Carnifex for other units.

Edited June 14, 2021 by taikishi

[BitsHammer]

Outflanking might be one of the better approaches for them since they have good movement and we can long bomb easily if needed. I wish we could deep strike them, but then again I wanted a drop chapel or drop shrine for the codex so my point of view is a bit silly

[Purifying Tempest]

And all of that is 100% fair, and wrapping them with the correct unit selection is pretty key to their success.  On their own, I don't think they can stand as well.

 

The "armor" problem in the game is pretty bad.  I don't think anyone is feeling super good about bringing vehicles where every Bob and Tim in a foot unit can solve them relatively easily with a weapon.  Like the Immolator got a pip of PL, too, so that increase even affects me over here in Crusade land.  But, I did see a period in the game not too long ago where twin-MM immolators were... uh... we'll leave it at "good".  I do want to play through a few iterations with them still to see if they're simply... less efficient because of the points hop, or hit just hard enough to warrant looking at non-mechanized lists.

 

There's quite a few gimmicks I can still see with transports, Dominions getting back the pre-game move for transports is not an insignificant buff.  I also think a bit of the vehicle dings come to prevent parking lots and armored spam lists (yes, IG, everyone is looking at you, thanks...).  Weapons to engage and destroy vehicles are still fairly limited, and saturation of vehicles can REALLY swing the game hard against certain lists that have... less frequent access to units that can kill armor.  I think that's making them a bit more reserved with what's happening with vehicles overall.  I do think there is a certain point, that may be achievable even, where the armor saturation does provide a pretty good screen for units like Paragons.

 

I even think PEngine and Mortifiers can benefit from a unit of Paragons being set in.  Opponent cannot prioritize the Paragons, because well... you know, the other things.  And by the time they chew through the rush of the reckless suits, they should have very few answers left for the armored ones.  I hope they at least compliment our range so that their inclusion adds a depth dimension that yields more-than-lateral (ahem... linear) returns to how they impact the board

 

And yeah, I thought to mention outflanking them, but I REALLY don't think that's the answer.  I'm kinda high on paragons, but don't think 2CP is worth it because of their PL.  Especially with how CP-needy the army is to maintain that higher output.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Purifying Tempest

[Bonzi]

I'm running Paragons as a mostly solo unit on the flanks. With multimeltas or the heavy flamers and movement 8 they can serve as a good counter punch unit that also threatens to leap forward and break a flank if they aren't answered. I know they're too expensive for what they do and that other things do it better, buy the models are too cool to not use and I don't play tournaments.

 

I think the best strength of Paragons is their ability to run solo. They have some good strats they can use without needing a character to babysit or buff (which would be doubling down on a bad investment). This means you can maximize their movement and play the flanks while the rest of your army tries to dominate the center.

 

The very best thing about Paragons is that they can be fixed mostly with a point adjustment, probably to the tune of a 30 point drop for the whole unit. There are other units out there that are just unusable by their very statline or ability and I am glad that Paragons don't sit in that category.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Bonzi

[taikishi]

Dominions getting back their ability to scout transports makes me wish Repressors weren't legends. 120 for a better Immolator if you the the second heavy flamer, or 105 stock, and the ability to shoot out...

 

;.;

 

So glad our local group, last I checked, didn't care about Legends.

[ThePenitentOne]

Got my dex!

 

So I find that the interconnectedness of buffs of various sources makes discussing the relative power of units difficult in 9th ed; that's across the board, not just with sisters and this dex. I find it interferes with discussion- we list a given unit, and then we talk about how it CAN be buffed. For those who have different preferences, this mode of discourse makes the unit in question easy to dismiss; we can do this by talking about how many resources it takes to achieve the combination; we can talk about the difficulty of getting those resources lined up; and finally we can talk about where those same resources might otherwise be deployed.

 

So I suggest using an old term in a new context to shed some light on the relative value of units. I've always loved the term "Opportunity Cost." Usually, this term refers to what otherwise might be purchased with the same points; sometimes, we see it used to describe what might otherwise be done with resources other than points.

 

I suggest shifting the term to also include the amount of opportunities for augmentation that a given unit possesses. This is an interesting way to look at a unit, because you don't actually have to come up with the combo, which would just be gainsaid by the non-believers, for any of the reasons listed above. This perspective also acknowledges the fact that various augmentations can be used as needed; sometimes a job is easy enough that it can be done without augmentation, sometimes a single augmentation will be sufficient toi achieve a desired effect, and other times that unit might need everything it can get.

 

Viewed through this lens, the Paragons shine pretty bright. They can benefit from any aura in the game, including the divine power miraculous effects; they can use miracle dice; they get shield of Faith, conferring both the save and the deny; they can benefit from their <Order> ability and strat; they can benefit from most strats in the game- including those for Celestians. Rarely will you be in a position that you need all of these things, and rarely will you be in a position where you can use all of them. The point remains: with Paragons, you have these opportunities.

 

Mortifiers, at their base, certainly do provide better value for their points. But they certainly do not provide anywhere the opportunities. Not only are they not <Order>, they aren't even Core. They CAN'T use MD, or deny, and while the un-augmented invul isn't much to write home about, they don't get that either.

 

I love all my sisters walkers- including Mortifiers and even the lowly PE. But when a job needs to be done, and a Mortifier can't do it, that's that- they just fail.

 

When a job needs to be done and a Paragon can't do it? There are usually at least some opportunities to flip that script. Buff stacking doesn't have to be planned and budgeted for in order for it to happen- sometimes just having the option goes a long way.

[Blurf]

So some observations on early list building a Bloody Rose primary army.

 

I always want to cut Morvenn. I understand she's strong but she never seems to fit anywhere. Celestine makes more sense as a durable buffing warlord since almost all the stuff we want on the table doesn't care about reroll hit/wound.

 

The preacher and the Repentia superior run circles around their competition for buffing melee units, which is indirectly a point in favor of repentia vs Sacresants(who get weaker buffs from more expensive models).

 

Every question in the army feels like it has a clear answer. Melee output? Bloody Rose Repentia. Mid-Long Range shooting? Argent Shroud Retributors, Rhinos? Rhino. Deepstrikers? Pass.

 

Using other convictions shakes this up somewhat but outside of AS they just don't have the punch and end up relying more on not dying than killing which goes against how I personally play the army.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Blurf

[Blurf]

You mean when TT took a special character and didn't give her any kind of body guard once so ever? Yeah, that's ridiculous to use as an example of her being weak.

 

Moving on to something relevant to the book I think Argent Shroud is worse than people think for one reason: it only works on normal moves and advances. This means it can't work on disembarks as those are not normal moves.

I think it's an example that illustrates that she's not the 'do it all by myself' option she's made out to be.

 

She's best when there are a lot of buff ready bodies on the table to both provide Look out Sir! and help cull the type of enemy units that heavily threaten her(eradicators) and Sisters really struggle leaving bodies on the table without going full infantry horde.

 

She's worrying in VH or AS body slog lists but in traditional 'nuns in rhinos' setups she's far from oppressive.

 

Also, I don't know if it's been pointed out yet(cathcing up on the discussion) but this is wrong. Disembarking is a totally self contained activity.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Blurf

[Bonzi]

So some observations on early list building a Bloody Rose primary army.

 

I always want to cut Morvenn. I understand she's strong but she never seems to fit anywhere. Celestine makes more sense as a durable buffing warlord since almost all the stuff we want on the table doesn't care about reroll hit/wound.

 

The preacher and the Repentia superior run circles around their competition for buffing melee units, which is indirectly a point in favor of repentia vs Sacresants(who get weaker buffs from more expensive models).

 

Every question in the army feels like it has a clear answer. Melee output? Bloody Rose Repentia. Mid-Long Range shooting? Argent Shroud Retributors, Rhinos? Rhino. Deepstrikers? Pass.

 

Using other convictions shakes this up somewhat but outside of AS they just don't have the punch and end up relying more on not dying than killing which goes against how I personally play the army.

It's a fair point. Vahl is a great commander but the army needs to build around her rather than Bloody Rose where you build around melee units and slot buffs as needed. I think Vahl wants a big unit of Sacresants and large blobs of sisters to push in front of her and Retributors beside her to catch the aura. She pretty much demands to be the center of an advancing castle of sisters and that's not the most flexible play style and it certainly isn't Bloody Rose.

[ThePenitentOne]

As an alternative, I'm looking forward to trying Celestine 2.0. Angelic Ascent is nice, and she's got Deepstrike and her Geminae back. She's the beatstick we know as opposed to the new hotness, but I think she'll do well.

[Blurf]

 

 

I mean, the whole point of using math is to understand what to expect on average. You can then compare that result, be it damage dealing or durability, to a competing unit and see if it's worth it for the given role in your army.

 

And that's kind of the important part, there's some roles that aren't able to be calculated as easily and are more of something you need to flex in circumstantially.

 

In a straight up damage comparison we can see that it requires a lot of resources for the Paragons to deal less than mortifiers. In a straight up defence comparison we can see they are more likely to die to a common weapon. So in that role of either DPS support or durable anchor, theyre not good compared to competing choices.

 

But when stuff maybe changes with Orks, who traditionally like volume of fire instead of quality, the Paragons might be better prospect. New variables change the math.

Understood, but shutting down the discussion means that we never had the conversation of where Paragons excel (basically beating weapons with "bolt" in their name or other similar weapons). They go onto the shelf and no one buys them, they are forgotten and as the meta shifts we lose a tool.

Not to belabor a point but...wouldn't the correct response from a business standpoint be: Make this unit better so it does sell? Ravenguard made Assault Centurions really good and you couldn't find those anywhere for months.

[Blurf]

As an alternative, I'm looking forward to trying Celestine 2.0. Angelic Ascent is nice, and she's got Deepstrike and her Geminae back. She's the beatstick we know as opposed to the new hotness, but I think she'll do well.

I think she'll be amazing as warlord in any army that has significant rhino investment. Having Indomitable belief on something that can move fast and probably won't die easy is pretty valuable when you're just trying to keep a handful of battle sisters/mid table repentia alive. Too bad she can't give morites a 6++ anymore though.

[Montford]

So I have my first game with the new book tomorrow. I was just going over some of the stratagem wordings and comparing them between the old and new book to catch anything I may mess up, and I feel like Holy Trinity got nerfed back to how it was in the CA codex back when we were rolling for Acts on a 5+ like the old 5th edition WD sham of a dex they saddled us with.  I would love some clarification from you guys, as I really do not want to cheat my opponent, but also really want combi weapons to work for it lol. The wording in the 8th edition dex says "...within range of at least one bolt weapon being shot by a model in the unit, one flame weapon being shot by a model in the unit, and one melta weapon being shot by a model in the unit." The new codex wording states (after adding the visibility sentence of course, which is fine and I understand why) "...at least one model in in that unit equipped with a bolt weapon, one model in that unit equipped with a flame weapon and one model in that unit equipped with a melta weapon..." 

 

So...do combi weapons still count? Or do I need 3 separate models to all have those different weapons equipped again?  The range requirement is till there of course, not worried about that with a dominion squad lol. My issue is that I am not sure if the superior with the combi weapon counts as satisfying both instances of "a model" because she is a model with 2/3 of whatever weapons are required, but since the new codex specifies "a model...,a model..., a model..." do we need to have 3 such models to satisfy it?

 

Sorry to be so convoluted and I hate to even bring this up, but I just do not want to mess any more rules up than I probably will tomorrow lol.

I think its OK. A model with a combi-melta counts as 'one model with a melta weapon' and it counts as 'one model with a bolt weapon'.

 

However if you want to play it safe give the Superior a combi-melta and one Sister a flamer for a Battle Sister squad. Or were you thinking of a different type of Squad?

[sitnam]

 

So I have my first game with the new book tomorrow. I was just going over some of the stratagem wordings and comparing them between the old and new book to catch anything I may mess up, and I feel like Holy Trinity got nerfed back to how it was in the CA codex back when we were rolling for Acts on a 5+ like the old 5th edition WD sham of a dex they saddled us with.  I would love some clarification from you guys, as I really do not want to cheat my opponent, but also really want combi weapons to work for it lol. The wording in the 8th edition dex says "...within range of at least one bolt weapon being shot by a model in the unit, one flame weapon being shot by a model in the unit, and one melta weapon being shot by a model in the unit." The new codex wording states (after adding the visibility sentence of course, which is fine and I understand why) "...at least one model in in that unit equipped with a bolt weapon, one model in that unit equipped with a flame weapon and one model in that unit equipped with a melta weapon..." 

 

So...do combi weapons still count? Or do I need 3 separate models to all have those different weapons equipped again?  The range requirement is till there of course, not worried about that with a dominion squad lol. My issue is that I am not sure if the superior with the combi weapon counts as satisfying both instances of "a model" because she is a model with 2/3 of whatever weapons are required, but since the new codex specifies "a model...,a model..., a model..." do we need to have 3 such models to satisfy it?

 

Sorry to be so convoluted and I hate to even bring this up, but I just do not want to mess any more rules up than I probably will tomorrow lol.

I think its OK. A model with a combi-melta counts as 'one model with a melta weapon' and it counts as 'one model with a bolt weapon'.

 

However if you want to play it safe give the Superior a combi-melta and one Sister a flamer for a Battle Sister squad. Or were you thinking of a different type of Squad?

 

I think the thinking is to use such for a dominion squad, say a combi-melta Superior with flamer doms

[BitsHammer]

As an alternative, I'm looking forward to trying Celestine 2.0. Angelic Ascent is nice, and she's got Deepstrike and her Geminae back. She's the beatstick we know as opposed to the new hotness, but I think she'll do well.

I'll be honest: deep striking her where she's needed and smashing her into a unit with some MD looks fun as heck.

 

As an alternative, I'm looking forward to trying Celestine 2.0. Angelic Ascent is nice, and she's got Deepstrike and her Geminae back. She's the beatstick we know as opposed to the new hotness, but I think she'll do well.

I think she'll be amazing as warlord in any army that has significant rhino investment. Having Indomitable belief on something that can move fast and probably won't die easy is pretty valuable when you're just trying to keep a handful of battle sisters/mid table repentia alive. Too bad she can't give morites a 6++ anymore though.

 

Yeah, a meched OML list looks like a good fit. Might not be a bad place to slip in a brick or two of 20 BSS with the Triumph as well.

[taikishi]

Got my dex!

 

So I find that the interconnectedness of buffs of various sources makes discussing the relative power of units difficult in 9th ed; that's across the board, not just with sisters and this dex. I find it interferes with discussion- we list a given unit, and then we talk about how it CAN be buffed. For those who have different preferences, this mode of discourse makes the unit in question easy to dismiss; we can do this by talking about how many resources it takes to achieve the combination; we can talk about the difficulty of getting those resources lined up; and finally we can talk about where those same resources might otherwise be deployed.

 

So I suggest using an old term in a new context to shed some light on the relative value of units. I've always loved the term "Opportunity Cost." Usually, this term refers to what otherwise might be purchased with the same points; sometimes, we see it used to describe what might otherwise be done with resources other than points.

 

I suggest shifting the term to also include the amount of opportunities for augmentation that a given unit possesses. This is an interesting way to look at a unit, because you don't actually have to come up with the combo, which would just be gainsaid by the non-believers, for any of the reasons listed above. This perspective also acknowledges the fact that various augmentations can be used as needed; sometimes a job is easy enough that it can be done without augmentation, sometimes a single augmentation will be sufficient toi achieve a desired effect, and other times that unit might need everything it can get.

 

Viewed through this lens, the Paragons shine pretty bright. They can benefit from any aura in the game, including the divine power miraculous effects; they can use miracle dice; they get shield of Faith, conferring both the save and the deny; they can benefit from their <Order> ability and strat; they can benefit from most strats in the game- including those for Celestians. Rarely will you be in a position that you need all of these things, and rarely will you be in a position where you can use all of them. The point remains: with Paragons, you have these opportunities.

 

Mortifiers, at their base, certainly do provide better value for their points. But they certainly do not provide anywhere the opportunities. Not only are they not <Order>, they aren't even Core. They CAN'T use MD, or deny, and while the un-augmented invul isn't much to write home about, they don't get that either.

 

I love all my sisters walkers- including Mortifiers and even the lowly PE. But when a job needs to be done, and a Mortifier can't do it, that's that- they just fail.

 

When a job needs to be done and a Paragon can't do it? There are usually at least some opportunities to flip that script. Buff stacking doesn't have to be planned and budgeted for in order for it to happen- sometimes just having the option goes a long way.

In economics, everything is an opportunity cost from "could I be making more working for someone else vs. working for myself" to "do I want to spend my $15 on a pizza or a monthly subscription to my favorite online game?" Games are no different, and wargames especially. Every unit, every weapon option, every CP spent, ever slot in your detachments, and the points spent on each unit are all opportunity costs because you give up something in return, thus foregoing the next best alternative.

 

Another major principle is marginal utility and marginal costs. Most people see the word marginal and instinctively think "very small", but in this context it refers to an increase (or decrease) in increments. What increased utility are you getting for the increase in cost? What additional satisfaction are you deriving for that increase in utility? At what point does adding one more "unit" (e.g. 1 more battle sister or 1 more meltagun) actually start to decrease your marginal utility and marginal satisfaction?

 

The more I think about it, list building is very much a lesson in basic economic principles. What are you giving up to take this unit? Are you gaining or losing satisfaction (subjective) and utility (more objective but can still be subjective) by taking another Battle Sister Squad over a unit of Zephyrim? Even playing the game has its own economy: if I shoot at this unit, will I still be able to deal with these other threats? Do I want to buff my Mortifiers with the base War Hymn or do I want to save it and spend a CP once my Zephyrim show up this turn? Do I want to re-roll this hit roll or want to save it for one of the wound rolls I still need to make?

 

Looking at Paragons vs. both Penitent Engines and Mortifiers, here are the immediate pros and cons:

 

Pros:

- Access to the Core keyword

- Access to Sacred Rites

- Access to the deny portion of SoF

- Access to Order Convictions

- An Adepta Sororitas unit (only matters vs. Penitent Engines)

- Grants MD via Vengeance (only matters vs. Penitent Engines)

- Can perform Acts of Faith

- Better stock save (2+ vs 4+, or 3+ with an Anchorite)

- Access to Multi-meltas

- Takes 1 less damage from attacks

- Better WS than Penitent Engines

- Can perform Actions

- War blade is higher strength, AP, and damage than flails and grants an extra attack natively

- War mace is higher strength than the buzz blades and deals 1D more.

- Access to, or benefit from, the following stratagems over Mortifiers and/or Penitent Engines:

* Exceptional Proficiency, Moment of Grace (can be used by Mortifiers), Holy Rage, Purity of Faith (can be used by Mortifiers), Faith and Fury, Judgment of the Faithful, Holy Trinity, Rites of Battle

 

Cons:

- 1 fewer Wound

- No Zealot without using a Stratagem

- No FNP

- Penitent Engines can advance and charge, something even AS Paragons can't do

- More expensive per model than PE and Mortifiers

- Smaller units for the same or less points

- Elites slot is fairly bloated, even with certain units being able to be taken slotless under the right conditions, and some of our pre-existing Elites got better (Hospitaller, Dialogus, Crusaders as cheap action monkeys)

- PE and Mortifiers are generally only competing with Retributors for Heavy Support slots

- Fewer attacks in melee (4 with war blades, 5 on the superior vs possibly 5 with buzz blades or 10 with flails)

- Buzz Blades have a more favorable AP than war maces

- Mortifiers have a 4+ chance of getting to swing (again) when destroyed in melee

- Fewer shots from Cleansed by Fire if you take heavy flamers (max 18 vs max 48)

- Final Redemption adds to what can already be a terrifying suicide unit in PE and Mortifiers

 

 

The question is whether the pros are enough to outweigh the cons. For my dollar, no. Despite their limited access to buffs (almost exclusively War Hymns), Mortifiers are better units that Paragons for the same cost, and the buffs you can put into Paragons like improved Shield of Faith, FNP from a Hospitaller, and even Catechism of Repugnance are better used in things like 20-block models of Battle Sisters, Bloody Rose Repentia, etc Which is another thing to remember: this isn't just about Paragons vs Mortifiers. This is Paragons vs everything else you can get for those 240-270 points and how they're affected by the same buffs.

[Lemondish]

Congratulations, you just extolled doing 4 less damage than Mortifiers in the shooting phase* (6 if you aren't in half-range) for 50-65 more points, an action, Divine Guidance, and a command point. This is irrespective of the Argent Shroud reroll since that only equates to a 2/9 chance of forcing another save.

 

4 Mortifiers are 240 points with 8 BS3 heavy bolters. 3 Paragons + a minimum Dialogus is 290 points.

 

Mortifiers average 12 damage to a unit of Marines. Paragons with your listed buffs except for a Canoness deal 8 damage, or 6 damage outside half range. A Canoness only adds one additional failed save to the totals, bringing them to within 2D within half range, or within 4D of Mortifiers outside half range. Vs. T5 3+, Mortifiers do equal damage to Paragons once the Paragons are buffed and inside half range.

 

As for saves, with the Hymn active Paragons take as much damage on average as Mortifiers after their FNP when shot by dark lances and multimeltas. The Mortifier, however, will generally survive an attack from a Dark Lance with 1-2W remaining (~26% chance) and 93% chance of surviving a Dark Lance at all (failed hit, failed wound, FNP reduces damage below 5). 55% of the time, the Dark Lance attack doesn't damage the Mortifier. A Paragon has a 69% chance of taking no damage from a Dark Lance, but if the SoF save fails there's only a 1 in 3 chance the Paragon survives. 20% of Dark Lance attacks will destroy a 5++ Paragon. 7% of Dark Lance attacks destroy a Mortifier.

 

I'll math how both stand up again multimeltas later. Don't have a lot of time right now and this post went longer than I anticipated.

 

* Numbers are purely for heavy bolters. Storm bolters will follow later, though the different ranges will require 4 sets of data points.

Great info even if your tone and approach is unnecessarily abrasive.

 

I just really hate the model so I don't think I'll ever play a Mortifier even if they were half the points lol

 

Won't dissuade me from using Paragons to the best of my ability. Far superior model, and it won't be long relatively speaking for them to see a points decrease.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Lemondish

[sitnam]

 

Congratulations, you just extolled doing 4 less damage than Mortifiers in the shooting phase* (6 if you aren't in half-range) for 50-65 more points, an action, Divine Guidance, and a command point. This is irrespective of the Argent Shroud reroll since that only equates to a 2/9 chance of forcing another save.

 

4 Mortifiers are 240 points with 8 BS3 heavy bolters. 3 Paragons + a minimum Dialogus is 290 points.

 

Mortifiers average 12 damage to a unit of Marines. Paragons with your listed buffs except for a Canoness deal 8 damage, or 6 damage outside half range. A Canoness only adds one additional failed save to the totals, bringing them to within 2D within half range, or within 4D of Mortifiers outside half range. Vs. T5 3+, Mortifiers do equal damage to Paragons once the Paragons are buffed and inside half range.

 

As for saves, with the Hymn active Paragons take as much damage on average as Mortifiers after their FNP when shot by dark lances and multimeltas. The Mortifier, however, will generally survive an attack from a Dark Lance with 1-2W remaining (~26% chance) and 93% chance of surviving a Dark Lance at all (failed hit, failed wound, FNP reduces damage below 5). 55% of the time, the Dark Lance attack doesn't damage the Mortifier. A Paragon has a 69% chance of taking no damage from a Dark Lance, but if the SoF save fails there's only a 1 in 3 chance the Paragon survives. 20% of Dark Lance attacks will destroy a 5++ Paragon. 7% of Dark Lance attacks destroy a Mortifier.

 

I'll math how both stand up again multimeltas later. Don't have a lot of time right now and this post went longer than I anticipated.

 

* Numbers are purely for heavy bolters. Storm bolters will follow later, though the different ranges will require 4 sets of data points.

I just really hate the model so I don't think I'll ever play a Mortifier even if they were half the points lol

 

 

Glad I'm not the only one that dislikes Mortifiers. I hate them lorewise, as I dont feel that Repentia failing their duties should be frequent enough to necessitate an entire unit type. I hate them game-play wise as they seem to occupy the same space as Pentinent Engines, and atleast in 8th were just flat better; now they also kind of overshadow what paragons should be. I think the model is fine, but I prefer the look and theme of PE's. I still hate them lore wise, but atleast gameplay wise they could of differentiated PE's and Morts via wargear choices: PE's only get buzzsaws and flamers, Mortifiers only get HB's and flails.

[Blurf]

Not gonna quote the whole post but would just like to thank Taikishi for bringing back flashbacks from my Econ degree. Miss that stuff, wish I had had better luck outta college :(.

 

So buff characters tier list, excludes palatine and canoness both because of morvenn and because they're obvious picks and the hospitaller because once you reach model count critical mass she becomes a mandatory take (WITH book of St. Lucius): Preacher>repentia superior(repentia only, obvi)>Imagifier>Dialogus>Dogmata>Missionary>Banner duo.

 

Preacher because he does the job you need him to do for 25pts, repentia superior because +1 to wound is awesome and her targeted buff is fantastic if you could ever get it to work(she's also fairly cheap at 40), imagifier because it's an aura, Dialogus for miracle dice adjustment+being a priest, dogmata because (unpopular opinion) I don't actually care about obsec very much, missionary for being a worse preacher and his aura being useless (your ld8 bro, not that impressive) , banner duo because one turn of bonus sacred rights is almost completely pointless as an army wide buff.

[Progenitor]

I'm taking Paragons (with the grenades and MMs no less), my Exorcist and some SB Doms in an Immolator! I guess I'm just a bad player! 

 

I don't play tourneys, I play matched play with friends, but this idea of an codex living or dying by what units are bleeding edge optimised for tournament play I find really takes a lot of the fun out of the hobby and discovering parts of the army and having fun with them. When I read threads about "turd tier" Codexes winning tournaments because someone looked at the meta and worked out a way to skew a list to beat it, how can we ever really just rank anything and everything? 

 

We're each entitled to play our own way, and I love that, but writing off units and even codices before they've actually even had chance to get on tables. That's something I'll never be behind. 

[ThePenitentOne]

I second the thanks to Takishi- that was a fabulous breakdown.

[Blurf]

I'm taking Paragons (with the grenades and MMs no less), my Exorcist and some SB Doms in an Immolator! I guess I'm just a bad player! 

 

I don't play tourneys, I play matched play with friends, but this idea of an codex living or dying by what units are bleeding edge optimised for tournament play I find really takes a lot of the fun out of the hobby and discovering parts of the army and having fun with them. When I read threads about "turd tier" Codexes winning tournaments because someone looked at the meta and worked out a way to skew a list to beat it, how can we ever really just rank anything and everything? 

 

We're each entitled to play our own way, and I love that, but writing off units and even codices before they've actually even had chance to get on tables. That's something I'll never be behind. 

I don't mean to step on the greater point here, but there's also a long history of those wins coming at the hands of exploiting holes in the event's rules rather than doing anything creative. For every 'lyctor shame' list there's at least 1 'slow play orkz'.

[SkimaskMohawk]

So just going to point this out; battlescribe has the new points and units while the app (at least for me) still doesn't.

 

Really wish they'd just kept the Epub version.